George Will: "This Sad, Embarrassing Wreck Of A Man"
Trump's terrible, as most here agree. But his terribleness has driven many of his critics to apoplexy and hyperbole. Will commonly has a cooler head. It's perhaps not his title, but I'd say "infuriating, embarrassing wreck" is more accurate. "Sad" is an insult, not an accurate description, really. I mean, he's winning and cavorting about and doing whatever he wants and ostentatiously thumbing his nose at his critics...so...I don't see 'sad' so much. I wish he were sad. And maybe he is, sub specie aeternitatis, and/or in the sense of being pathetic...but whatever.
I also very much doubt that the Russians have anything on him. It's an overly-elaborate explanation where a simple one will do: Trump often does the opposite of what he's told he should, and does such things specifically to poke a finger in the eye of his critics/enemies. He probably didn't collude with the Russians, and he's angry at the suggestion. He sees the accusations and investigations and evidences of Russian meddling as being a part of the collusion case against him, and so he takes the other side. Minimizing evidence of Russian meddling is one way to minimize evidence of collusion. He's not a particularly complicated dude, and his actions in Helsinki don't require a particularly complicated explanation. (But, of course, explanatory arguments by themselves aren't very strong. We're really just offering interpretations when we operate at this level.)
Obviously none of this excuses anything he said. I'm really just saying, yet again: I don't see any reason to make him seem any worse than he actually is. The reality is plenty bad enough.
Two years six months three days left, as of now. Gird up your loins and proceed with determination.
I also very much doubt that the Russians have anything on him. It's an overly-elaborate explanation where a simple one will do: Trump often does the opposite of what he's told he should, and does such things specifically to poke a finger in the eye of his critics/enemies. He probably didn't collude with the Russians, and he's angry at the suggestion. He sees the accusations and investigations and evidences of Russian meddling as being a part of the collusion case against him, and so he takes the other side. Minimizing evidence of Russian meddling is one way to minimize evidence of collusion. He's not a particularly complicated dude, and his actions in Helsinki don't require a particularly complicated explanation. (But, of course, explanatory arguments by themselves aren't very strong. We're really just offering interpretations when we operate at this level.)
Obviously none of this excuses anything he said. I'm really just saying, yet again: I don't see any reason to make him seem any worse than he actually is. The reality is plenty bad enough.
Two years six months three days left, as of now. Gird up your loins and proceed with determination.
1 Comments:
Two questions:
What did you make of Trump's apology/clarification? It seemed a bit half-hearted to me, but I am an awful judge of reading into body language, inflection, and context.
I like your countdown, but what happens if someone like Elizabeth Warren is Trump's opponent in 2020? I think some people who read these posts would choose Warren over Trump, but I'm not so sure what I would do in that case. Both are pretty terrible IMO.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home